The Prison Rape Elimination Act 
Juvenile Case Law - Juvenile Justice
For more information on these cases email endsilence@wcl.american.edu.
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982)
Juvenile’s Constitutional right to personal safety
Clarence M. Yakima Co.,
Physical, psychological, or verbal abuse by staff is prohibited; body searches should be done by the same sex as the person being inspected; staff members who have been accused of physically abusing juveniles should be removed from direct contact with juveniles pending the final resolution of the complaint once the responsible investigation official finds probable cause.
Case v. Ahitow, [301 F. 3d 605 (7th Cir. 2002)]
If prison officials behave with deliberate indifference to a prisoners safety and could have prevented it, but did not do so, they are liable under the 8th Amendment
Holloway v. Wittry, [842 F. Supp. 1193, 1199 (S.D. Iowa 1994)]
COs must protect wards from abuse from other wards if they are aware of the danger or abuse and act with subjective deliberate indifference.
Guidry v. Rapides Parish School Board, [560 So.2d 125 (La. Ct. App. 1990)]
Failure to protect a child from the sexual behavior of other confined children may result in liability
Jones v. Diamond, [636 F.2d 1364,1373 (5th Cir 1981)] Citing Withers v. Levine, [615 F.2d 158 (4th Cir. 1980)]
Confinement in a prison where terror reigns is cruel and unusual punishment. A prisoner has the right to be protected from the constant threat of violence and from sexual assault.
Law v. Britt [No.93-300-CT-BR (E.D. N.C. 1995)]
Consent decree required facilities to house children accused of sexual abuse in their own rooms
Smith v. Wade [461 U.S. 30 (1983)]
The court found the failure of facility authorities to separate aggressive youth from potential victims could demonstrate callous or reckless indifference, making them liable for the injury of the endangered youth
T.Y v. Board of Co. Comm’rs, [Case No.94-4079-DES, 26; XV (d) (D. Kan. 1995)]
The facility shall maintain a system of classifying residents upon admission which will ensure that each resident is protected from the threat of harm, violence and suicide.
E.R v. McDonnell, [Civ. No, 94-N-2816, 6 (d. Colo. 1995)]
Classification will confine youth based on their offense, size; separating aggressive youths from vulnerable youths
G.C. v. Coler, [87-6220-CIV-GONZALES, 21 XI (S.D. Fla. 1988)]
HRS shall maintain a system of classifying juvenile residents upon admission… which will ensure that each juvenile resident is protected from the constant threat of harm and violence … shall control and separate and/or segregate dangerous residents from those who are not.
Strickler v. Waters, [989 F.2d1375 (4th Cir. 1993)]
Strip searches were not unconstitutional because reasonable efforts were made to avid exposure of prisoner’s genitals to prison officials of the opposite sex where a counter obstructed the view of female guards’ view of inmates below their waist
Cannell v. Beyers, [840 F. Supp. 1387 (D. Or. 1993)]
Body Searches (visual body and strip) should be done out of the view of other offenders and staff of the opposite sex
Canedy v. Boardman, [16F. 3d 183 (7th Cir. 1994)]
Invasion of privacy finding where female guards were routinely allowed to conduct strip searches of male inmates
Jordan v. Gardner, [986 F. 2d 1521, 1524-25 (9th Cir. 1993)]
Prison policy requiring male guards to conduct random non-emergency, suspicionless clothes body searches on female prisoners was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment. These searches require kneading and squeezing. The court suggested a more general protected privacy interest in freedom from cross-gender clothed body searches
H.C v. Jarred [TCA 79-08320, 2; 6 (N.D. Fla. 1982)]
For all body cavity searches and all strip searches [except for the initial admission strip search and the search of a juvenile after leaving the facility] a written record of each inspection or search should be made
Doe v. Holladay [CV-77-74-BLG, 30; H (D. Mont. 1982)]
After a body search documentation of the staff and offender is required
Arey v. Robinson [819 F. Supp. 478, 487 (D. Md. 1992)]
The bathroom in a Maryland juvenile facility was found to be inappropriate due to the lack of privacy it afforded to male wards- whose genitalia could be viewed by unannounced female guards walking along an adjacent walkway… Basic human dignity requires some minimal protection of privacy, at least from the opposite sex and particularly where there are no security concerns have been advanced to justify the design chosen
T.Y v. Board of Co. Comm’rs, [Case No.94-4079-DES, 26;XV (d) (D. Kan. 1995)]
Staff members accused of physically abusing a juvenile should be removed from direct contact with the juvenile pending resolution of an investigation regarding the complaint
Williams v. Mckeithan, 121 F. Supp. 2d 943 (D.C. M.D. La 2000)
The state in this case was ordered to do acknowledgement training with all mandatory reporters at facility. Each training participant had to acknowledge responsibility to report under state law and the state had to tell them office and phone # to report suspected child abuse. The state was also required to insure that allegation has been or is being investigated.
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984)
The court found that there is no expectation of privacy in a cell and that cross gender searches and supervision for both boys and girls in more limited than in the adult context.
Philadelphia v. Penn. Human Relations Comm’n, 300 A.2d 97 (1973)
The court held that gender is a legitimate BFOQ at youth facilities, males to supervise males and females to supervise females.
Long v. California State Personnel Board, 41 Cal. App.3d 1000, 116 Cal. Rptr. 562 (1974)
A female was excluded from chaplain’s job at youth training center for males.
Doe v. Patton, 381 F.Supp.2d 595 (E.D. KY 2005)
A county and county official were granted immunity in the rape of a minor doing community service work at courthouse. The county official was not found to be immune in his official capacity
S.J. v. Hamilton County Ohio, 374 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2004)
The court found that the county was not entitled to immunity for failure to investigate and prevent sexual abuse of youth by another youth.
K.M. v. Alabama Department of Youth Services, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (M.D. Al. 2005)
Four juvenile girls sued AL DYS, DYS Exec. Dir. Chalkvile Campus Spt.--James Caldwell; Aseme and John Ziegler because the girls were allegedly physically and sexually assaulted and harassed by Aseme. The court found that Chalkvile and Caldwell were liable in their official capacity and Caldwell was also liable as an individual. Aseme and Ziegler were both found liable in their individual and personal capacity.
